RE: Does the Bible Contradict Itself?
July 30, 2012 at 11:14 am
(This post was last modified: July 30, 2012 at 11:35 am by The Grand Nudger.)
Why do you insist upon inserting confusion (in brackets) where none exists in the text. If it is ambiguous itself then why would it require your input? It's not an issue of "what Jesus meant" -this is again inserting a vector for ambiguity where none exists. It is an issue of "what the text says". It's a fucking storybook, why are the words in the narrative unsatisfying?
Do we insist that it must be symbolic because the text suggests it or because we have realized that bread and wine do not magically transform into body and blood? What does that have to do with the story? Nada.
I don't think that the text is unclear anywhere. Ambiguity only arises as a convenient excuse for the text being difficult to reconcile with reality. People expect too much of this particular tale, but that's a given isn't it? The narrative is one of a magical man doing magical things. Does this mean that there is no symbolism? No, it's chock full of it, but confined to the narrative, the magic is magic. In the same way that Lamfada literally defeats Balor in the narrative as a device for a symbolic expression of this or that outside of the narrative, Jesus performs literal magic within the narrative as a device for a symbolic expression of this or that outside of the narrative.
Now, why would Catholics, for example, decide to partake of communion? Well, the narrative describes a covenant made which they would like to opt in on, and so they have their medicine man perform a ritual to reenact the particulars of this covenant. Protestants presumably feel that this particular ritual is just magic (which it is), they have a distaste for this kind of magic (though they are perfectly fine with other types of magic) and so they opt out (specifically on the magical bits), instead preferring to view this as symbolic in nature. Transubstantiation, in this example, has very little to do with the narrative, because jesus himself is not performing magic at the table with believers in the here and now. It is a story which has been elaborated upon and institutionalized by one sect and downplayed by another. The text doesn't say two things on this issue, two differing sects do.
Do we insist that it must be symbolic because the text suggests it or because we have realized that bread and wine do not magically transform into body and blood? What does that have to do with the story? Nada.
I don't think that the text is unclear anywhere. Ambiguity only arises as a convenient excuse for the text being difficult to reconcile with reality. People expect too much of this particular tale, but that's a given isn't it? The narrative is one of a magical man doing magical things. Does this mean that there is no symbolism? No, it's chock full of it, but confined to the narrative, the magic is magic. In the same way that Lamfada literally defeats Balor in the narrative as a device for a symbolic expression of this or that outside of the narrative, Jesus performs literal magic within the narrative as a device for a symbolic expression of this or that outside of the narrative.
Now, why would Catholics, for example, decide to partake of communion? Well, the narrative describes a covenant made which they would like to opt in on, and so they have their medicine man perform a ritual to reenact the particulars of this covenant. Protestants presumably feel that this particular ritual is just magic (which it is), they have a distaste for this kind of magic (though they are perfectly fine with other types of magic) and so they opt out (specifically on the magical bits), instead preferring to view this as symbolic in nature. Transubstantiation, in this example, has very little to do with the narrative, because jesus himself is not performing magic at the table with believers in the here and now. It is a story which has been elaborated upon and institutionalized by one sect and downplayed by another. The text doesn't say two things on this issue, two differing sects do.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
